capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Actually a lanby is a large navigational mark.
Hitler couldn't "sink" it, but the MCA will
- Thread starter Robert Wilson
- Start date
Robert Wilson
Well-Known Member
Well it started off as boaty!
But go on, shift it to The Lounge (I don't know how to!!
)Who mentioned "lanby"?
RichardS
N/A
Robert Wilson
Well-Known Member
Well I certainly haven't heard of one, but I have heard of a Landy.........
I must have missed the former in an earlier post
Thank you Richard, for enlightening me. I shall look out for them in future!
I must have missed the former in an earlier post
Thank you Richard, for enlightening me. I shall look out for them in future!
Tomahawk
Well-Known Member
They were tried a few years ago but the idea abandoned because they were so awful for the maintenance teams.
A couple of "dead" ones were in Dunkirk or Calais.
Large Automatic Navagation Buoy.
A couple of "dead" ones were in Dunkirk or Calais.
Large Automatic Navagation Buoy.
steve yates
Well-Known Member
You couldnt use it as a taxi tho, and thats a more apt comparison
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
I don't know the legalities but I think an old bus does not need an MOT.
steve yates
Well-Known Member
I'd be shocked it it was allowed to carry fare paying passengers without something of that ilk, old or not.
Tamar
Well-Known Member
My surveyor was only talking about this earlier.
Apparently there are potential death traps taking upwards of 50 passengers on 'grandfather' rights with with very little or no positive bouancy should one meet with an accident. I know the 'Balmoral' was put out of operation because her hull needed to be double skinned for her next coding, which as she is run as a charity was impossible. No lottery funding was available.
Apparently there are potential death traps taking upwards of 50 passengers on 'grandfather' rights with with very little or no positive bouancy should one meet with an accident. I know the 'Balmoral' was put out of operation because her hull needed to be double skinned for her next coding, which as she is run as a charity was impossible. No lottery funding was available.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if they are treated any more leniently than cars in that respect - ie twenty five years old and substantially unmodified for no MOT. Buses in service do need MOTs, which is why so many bus depots are MOT testing stations and must accept booking for cars as well.
An enterprising student of mine owned a bus, which he brought to university with him about fifteen years ago. It had been his favourite in the fleet of his local operator (an old Volvo, I think) and when they retired it he was able to buy it for a very modest amount. Apparently he could drive it on his car licence and carry a limited number (12?) of non-paying passengers, but if he wanted to charge fares he would have needed a PCV licence and different inspection.
mattonthesea
Well-Known Member
Is that the chap that everyone thinks is an ass; but he thinks he's an elbow?
TwoHooter
Well-Known Member
The issue seems to be a choice between two approaches to safety management of historic passenger-carrying vessels, which can be summarised as follows:-
A. All vessels carrying passengers commercially should be subject to current construction standards with no exceptions.
B. Individual vessels should be able to apply for exemption from specific standards if a competent risk assessment shows that the hazards which result from the exemptions are either insignificant or can be mitigated in other ways. A long history of safe operation would be a valid mitigating factor, and limitations on operation would also be important.
I know something about the carriage of fare paying passengers in heritage vehicles. My wife and I built a railway which operates using heritage equipment, and we operated it for 18 years until our retirement (which was when we bought our first boat). I have written elsewhere about the deluge of rule-making we suffered during those years - over 50 pieces of primary and secondary legislation which made life pretty miserable at times. I attended meetings at the Department for Transport and submitted drafts for the amendment of proposed Statutory Instruments. The Safety Management System which I wrote for our railway was the first to be approved by the Chief Inspector of Railways and my paper 'A Safety Management System for small railways' was used by several organisations as the basis for their own SMSs. Over the years I have become convinced that the proper foundation for all safety management is the risk assessment, and this has been accepted by the ORR in most instances where the operation of heritage rail vehicles is concerned. Based on my long experience I believe the proper use of risk assessments is preferable to the imposition of blanket regulations which are supposed to apply to every situation. Such regulations usually result in a stream of corrections, amendments, and updates as the writers vainly try to foresee and prescribe solutions for every eventuality and react to eventualities which they have failed to foresee.
If it was up to me I would adopt approach B.
A. All vessels carrying passengers commercially should be subject to current construction standards with no exceptions.
B. Individual vessels should be able to apply for exemption from specific standards if a competent risk assessment shows that the hazards which result from the exemptions are either insignificant or can be mitigated in other ways. A long history of safe operation would be a valid mitigating factor, and limitations on operation would also be important.
I know something about the carriage of fare paying passengers in heritage vehicles. My wife and I built a railway which operates using heritage equipment, and we operated it for 18 years until our retirement (which was when we bought our first boat). I have written elsewhere about the deluge of rule-making we suffered during those years - over 50 pieces of primary and secondary legislation which made life pretty miserable at times. I attended meetings at the Department for Transport and submitted drafts for the amendment of proposed Statutory Instruments. The Safety Management System which I wrote for our railway was the first to be approved by the Chief Inspector of Railways and my paper 'A Safety Management System for small railways' was used by several organisations as the basis for their own SMSs. Over the years I have become convinced that the proper foundation for all safety management is the risk assessment, and this has been accepted by the ORR in most instances where the operation of heritage rail vehicles is concerned. Based on my long experience I believe the proper use of risk assessments is preferable to the imposition of blanket regulations which are supposed to apply to every situation. Such regulations usually result in a stream of corrections, amendments, and updates as the writers vainly try to foresee and prescribe solutions for every eventuality and react to eventualities which they have failed to foresee.
If it was up to me I would adopt approach B.
Tomahawk
Well-Known Member
So would I..
but that doesn't build empires in the minds of petty bureaucrats.
but that doesn't build empires in the minds of petty bureaucrats.
Robert Wilson
Well-Known Member
And so would most sensible people - clear as crystal. Well said.
And thereby hangs the rub. It's an ever burgeoning trait amongst many civil servants and other "governing" bodies. Mandating and punishing are the easy way to keep themselves in jobs and increase the size, scope and "importance" of their "empires".
"Animal Farm" by G. Orwell Esq. has it in a nutshell.